Early Christian writings along with the NT...

[pinacled]

Love has a way of frustrating doubt.

 

[Andrew]

Ah, so you've studied halacha.
If his mother was jewish, and father greek.
Why then do you assume greek was the milk that sustained ole sh'aul from birth?

Regardless.
I know for a fact that both his parents were hebrew.

Nothing to do with marriage, a Jewish couple living during that era and location would very likely be speaking Greek, how many Jews in America speak fluent Hebrew?

In Jerusalem they indeed spoke Hebrew as the dominant language, surrounding Jerusalem the common language was Aramaic, outside the languages fizzled into Greek to the point of only Greek over centuries of hellenization, Paul was born in that densely Hellenized region in Turkey

 

[Josiah]

Paul was born a hellenistic Jew, why do you think he was called "Egyptian"? Why would an orthodox Hebrew devote a moment of his time to learn a secular language and culture?

Questions are not substantiation.....

The Bible never REMOTELY says that Paul did not know Hebrew OR that he ever went anywhere at anytime to learn it. Your claim is entirely unsubstantiated. Now, you wrote a lot - but not one word from the Bible because there's not one word in the Bible that states what you do or remotely implies it.




.

 

[Josiah]

The Septuagint WAS the canon of the first Christians

You have nothing to substantiate that. The Septuagint was a TRANSLATION, one of tens of thousands of translations, all produced for one and only one reason: because there was a market for people who wanted to read stuff but could not read ancient Hebrew or koine Greek. That's it. That's all. A translation is NOT an official, formal, authoritative, definitive declaration of what is and is not Scripture. Not Luther's translation. Not King James' translation. Not Jerome's translation. No translation. Friend, you are making a LOT out of nothing.


It is likely some "church fathers" used translations. This likely because some could not read Hebrew. How does that prove that someone thus officially, formally, ecumenically and authoritatively declared what Books are and are not canonical?




.

 

[atpollard]

.

 

[Andrew]

You have nothing to substantiate that. The Septuagint was a TRANSLATION, one of tens of thousands of translations, all produced for one and only one reason: because there was a market for people who wanted to read stuff but could not read ancient Hebrew or koine Greek. That's it. That's all. A translation is NOT an official, formal, authoritative, definitive declaration of what is and is not Scripture. Not Luther's translation. Not King James' translation. Not Jerome's translation. No translation. Friend, you are making a LOT out of nothing.


It is likely some "church fathers" used translations. This likely because some could not read Hebrew. How does that prove that someone thus officially, formally, ecumenically and authoritatively declared what Books are and are not canonical?




.

Not a canon set by men but rather by the divine orchestrator Himself God Almighty.
Man can scribble down whatever he wishes, he can fasten an entire plethora of tall tale exhortations into one book and call it "The Holiest Canon of Holy Books Ever" if he chooses.. The Word comes from GOD alone and when God was setting the stage for the grand unveiling of the New Covenant and just before the arrival of His Son Christ Jesus.. GOD ordained it so that His WORD which he had given to the Jews and entrusted them with, must now be available also for the Gentile nation for the preparation of the their grafting into the New Covenant.

If one wants to make the argument that those books belong to the Jews and therefore the Greek translations (which the majority of Christian Gentiles used for study) are not worthy, not Holy, not important etc.. not only are you in denial that the early Christians used, studied and quoted from it, but you yourselves are making the same claim that the Old Testament belongs to the Jews thus your English translation is no different!
The ONLY difference is that unbelieving Jews for the very first time ever in human history dating back to creation itself decided to set a "canon"... and now the domino effect, now the undoing of the traditional set of books used by early Christians, now the mockery of the early churches who used them for sermons and to reflect on diligently..

God gave the gentile world His blessing by handing them the Word of God because he is a loving and thoughtful God, I just find that very beautiful is all.

 

[pinacled]

Not a canon set by men but rather by the divine orchestrator Himself God Almighty.
Man can scribble down whatever he wishes, he can fasten an entire plethora of tall tale exhortations into one book and call it "The Holiest Canon of Holy Books Ever" if he chooses.. The Word comes from GOD alone and when God was setting the stage for the grand unveiling of the New Covenant and just before the arrival of His Son Christ Jesus.. GOD ordained it so that His WORD which he had given to the Jews and entrusted them with, must now be available also for the Gentile nation for the preparation of the their grafting into the New Covenant.

If one wants to make the argument that those books belong to the Jews and therefore the Greek translations (which the majority of Christian Gentiles used for study) are not worthy, not Holy, not important etc.. not only are you in denial that the early Christians used, studied and quoted from it, but you yourselves are making the same claim that the Old Testament belongs to the Jews thus your English translation is no different!
The ONLY difference is that unbelieving Jews for the very first time ever in human history dating back to creation itself decided to set a "canon"... and now the domino effect, now the undoing of the traditional set of books used by early Christians, now the mockery of the early churches who used them for sermons and to reflect on diligently..

God gave the gentile world His blessing by handing them the Word of God because he is a loving and thoughtful God, I just find that very beautiful is all.

The deuterocanon is orchestrated soley by the men of Roman catholic hierarchy.

Catholic Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[ The Catholic Church, at the Council of Rome (382), when it settled the list of Scripture (46 books in O.T., 27 books in N.T., total 73 books), did not accept some of the books of the Septuagint as being inspired and canonical: namely, the Book of Enoch, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and some others.]

Lectionaries for use in the liturgy differ somewhat in text from the Bible versions on which they are based. The Vulgate is the official Bible translation of the Latin Church, but translating from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek has been encouraged since Pius XII issued the encyclical letter Divino afflante Spiritu in 1943.]


Instead of 46 books of the latin vulgate old testament.

24 books from the hebrew TaNakh seem quite telling in the sound number of bells.
[ And upon the skirts of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the skirts thereof; and bells of gold between them round about:]
Revelation 4


Blessings Always

 

[Andrew]

The deuterocanon is orchestrated soley by the men of Roman catholic hierarchy.

Catholic Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[ The Catholic Church, at the Council of Rome (382), when it settled the list of Scripture (46 books in O.T., 27 books in N.T., total 73 books), did not accept some of the books of the Septuagint as being inspired and canonical: namely, the Book of Enoch, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and some others.]

Lectionaries for use in the liturgy differ somewhat in text from the Bible versions on which they are based. The Vulgate is the official Bible translation of the Latin Church, but translating from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek has been encouraged since Pius XII issued the encyclical letter Divino afflante Spiritu in 1943.]


Instead of 46 books of the latin vulgate old testament.

24 books from the hebrew TaNakh seem quite telling in the sound number of bells.

Blessings Always

The Catholic church did not add these books, the unbelieving Jews deleted them.

Again, THE SEPTUAGINT was what the 1rst, 2nd and 3rd Christians READ, Church leaders wrote letters to the churches and were WELL acquainted with OT scriptures! HOW did they know the OT stories in detail? Sunday school? They all used the Septuagint! The first EVER translation that God had ordained for them... The unbelieving Jews were the FIRST to create a canon! If that canon was inspired by God through unbelievers I find that fascinating, I would suggest that the Word of God being given to the gentile nation is more an Act of God than the rejectors of Christ having the last word on what is scripture and what isn't!
Where were the protest and oppositions against these scrolls used in the Greek speaking synagogues from Jews during during the 400+ years of hellenism?
Why didn't the Jews in that era set a canon before Christ? They had NO issue with any of the books found in the Septuagint until AFTER Christianity began

 

[pinacled]

The Catholic church did not add these books, the unbelieving Jews deleted them.

Again, THE SEPTUAGINT was what the 1rst, 2nd and 3rd Christians READ, Church leaders wrote letters to the churches and were WELL acquainted with OT scriptures! HOW did they know the OT stories in detail? Sunday school? They all used the Septuagint! The first EVER translation that God had ordained for them... The unbelieving Jews were the FIRST to create a canon! If that canon was inspired by God through unbelievers I find that fascinating, I would suggest that the Word of God being given to the gentile nation is more an Act of God than the rejectors of Christ having the last word on what is scripture and what isn't!
Where were the protest and oppositions against these scrolls used in the Greek speaking synagogues from Jews during during the 400+ years of hellenism?
Why didn't the Jews in that era set a canon before Christ? They had NO issue with any of the books found in the Septuagint until AFTER Christianity began

There are many hebrew scrolls that were transliterated to greek in later yrs after the septugugu.
The septugugu legends are based off a psuedo historical reference to 72 hebrews transliteration of The Torah scroll(single) into greek with identical precision.

Many of the hebrew scrolls that were later transliterated to greek and excluded from the the latin vulgate were found in the Dead Sea scrolls.
Which predate the septugugu.

What the early apostles read whether greek or hebrew in their own personal studies cannot be known for certain.
Regardless of whether a greek or roman hierarchy claims it so.
Each teaching in such an absolute is the very definition of strife.

I hope you can recognize that both before and after Messiah the culture and demographic at large were multi lingual.

Especially in writing amongst the well to do and educated such as ole Sh'aul.

Read history closer.
The Hebrews(jews) were not the first to establish a canon except for the Torah.
Each scroll of the prophets and writings were unlike what is referred to as books in later canon from greeks and romans.
Scrolls such as kings and chronicles were each single. They were only later divided by gentiles out of selfish gain aside from providence.

Mark 10:9

 

[pinacled]

The Catholic church did not add these books, the unbelieving Jews deleted them.

Again, THE SEPTUAGINT was what the 1rst, 2nd and 3rd Christians READ, Church leaders wrote letters to the churches and were WELL acquainted with OT scriptures! HOW did they know the OT stories in detail? Sunday school? They all used the Septuagint! The first EVER translation that God had ordained for them... The unbelieving Jews were the FIRST to create a canon! If that canon was inspired by God through unbelievers I find that fascinating, I would suggest that the Word of God being given to the gentile nation is more an Act of God than the rejectors of Christ having the last word on what is scripture and what isn't!
Where were the protest and oppositions against these scrolls used in the Greek speaking synagogues from Jews during during the 400+ years of hellenism?
Why didn't the Jews in that era set a canon before Christ? They had NO issue with any of the books found in the Septuagint until AFTER Christianity began

Septuagint - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[ The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (/ˈsɛptjuədʒɪnt/,[1] US also /sɛpˈtjuːədʒɪnt/;[2] from the Latin: septuaginta, lit. 'seventy'; often abbreviated 70; in Roman numerals, LXX), is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible, various biblical apocrypha, and deuterocanonical books.[3] The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE; they did not survive as original-translation texts, however, except as rare fragments.[4] The remaining books of the Greek Old Testament are presumably translations of the 2nd century BCE ]

 

[Andrew]

Septuagint - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

[ The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (/ˈsɛptjuədʒɪnt/,[1] US also /sɛpˈtjuːədʒɪnt/;[2] from the Latin: septuaginta, lit. 'seventy'; often abbreviated 70; in Roman numerals, LXX), is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Hebrew Bible, various biblical apocrypha, and deuterocanonical books.[3] The first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, were translated in the mid-3rd century BCE; they did not survive as original-translation texts, however, except as rare fragments.[4] The remaining books of the Greek Old Testament are presumably translations of the 2nd century BCE ]

There was no such thing as "Apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical" books in the Septuagint until Jerome's translation and the church councils that followed coined those words.
No 1rst Century Christian ever used those words, the brenton Septuagint does not use those words, neither does the Eastern Orthodox who use the Septuagint.

The "Apocrypha" is a word Jerome used to describe the books that the Jews said are not in their "canon" which again wasn't created until after Christianity began and by unbelieving Jews. "Deuterocanonical" means 2nd canon, this 2nd canon would not exist had Jerome not sided with the "canon" unbelieving Jews.. (or should I say the Churches 1rst canon?)

 

[pinacled]

There was no such thing as "Apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical" books in the Septuagint until Jerome's translation and the church councils that followed coined those words.
No 1rst Century Christian ever used those words, the brenton Septuagint does not use those words, neither does the Eastern Orthodox who use the Septuagint.

The "Apocrypha" is a word Jerome used to describe the books that the Jews said are not in their "canon" which again wasn't created until after Christianity began and by unbelieving Jews. "Deuterocanonical" means 2nd canon, this 2nd canon would not exist had Jerome not sided with the "canon" unbelieving Jews.. (or should I say the Churches 1rst canon?)

And deuteronical canon is second to the Greek pentateuch(septugugu) division of The single Torah scroll into 5 books.

If you are willing to have a conversation in oil I'll show you The beauty of numerical instruction found within Torah.
Consider numbers of pomegranates, colors, and bells.
3s and 4s are The way of The King.

Blessed be The Holy One

 

[Andrew]

And deuteronical canon is second to the Greek pentateuch(septugugu) division of The single Torah scroll into 5 books.

If you are willing to have a conversation in oil I'll show you The beauty of numerical instruction found within Torah.
Consider numbers of pomegranates, colors, and bells.
3s and 4s are The way of The King.

Blessed be The Holy One

God settled the OT canon for the gentiles, if not then what a convenient coincidence isn't it?

I wonder what a scriptureless church would be like.

 

[pinacled]

God settled the OT canon for the gentiles, if not then what a convenient coincidence isn't it?

I wonder what a scriptureless church would be like.

Ha'shem has never sown confusion nor strife.

 

[pinacled]

God settled the OT canon for the gentiles, if not then what a convenient coincidence isn't it?

I wonder what a scriptureless church would be like.

The 5 parts of the single Torah scroll reflect the 5 sacrifices that confirm a covenant.
Do you recall them?

The birds are to be undivided.
Perhaps ole Sh'aul had forgotten this importance while being deceived into looking darkly in a mirror.

Language is a beautiful song when held to respect, integrity, discipline, and hospitility.

I believe ode: perhaps has an understanding of such manners.

 

[Andrew]

The 5 parts of the single Torah scroll reflect the 5 sacrifices the confirm a covenant.
Do you recall them?

The birds are to be undivided.
Perhaps ole Sh'aul had forgotten this importance while being deceived into looking darkly in a mirror.

Language is a beautiful song when held to respect, integrity, discipline, and hospitility.

I believe ode: perhaps has an understanding of such manners.

Please spare me your obscure poetry for the remainder of this conversation.

Question:
From what scriptural sources did the early Christians learn biblical stories?
A) Septuagint
B) Greeks were omniscient
C) Google
D) [insert suggestion]

 

[pinacled]

Please spare me your obscure poetry for the remainder of this conversation.

Question:
From what scriptural sources did the early Christians learn biblical stories?
A) Septuagint
B) Greeks were omniscient
C) Google
D) [insert suggestion]

E) theyve already heard them

 

[Andrew]

E) theyve already heard them

So all Christians were proselytes?

 

[pinacled]

So all Christians were proselytes?

Matthew 24:14

 

[pinacled]

So all Christians were proselytes?

Pomegranates have 3 colors before ripening.
Do you recall the colors in chronological order?